Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner
by motherscratcher » Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:03 pm
by Cerebral_DownTime » Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:51 pm
Motherscratcher wrote:The ACLU will sue to protect CDT's right to PM Orenthal and wear a tux while doing it.
by stonepm » Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:45 am
by Cerebral_DownTime » Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:18 pm
stonepm wrote:Here's my thing. The school has rules established and whether they are stupid or not is irrelavant This girl approached the school about "breaking" the rules, when in reality she should have followed the proper channels to actually "change" the rules. They said 'no', she sued. this makes her as big an idiot as the the school. But the tux thing I side with the school on. Since when has a tuxedo been elevated to the status of "political statement" that her not wearing one is violating her 1st Ammendment. They have a dress code, as lots of places do.
by waborat » Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:42 pm
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Christ..... People act like she wanted to hold a lesbian orgy on the dance floor.
by Cerebral_DownTime » Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:48 pm
waborat wrote:Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Christ..... People act like she wanted to hold a lesbian orgy on the dance floor.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9twNz0ta4U
by stonepm » Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:28 pm
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:A school cannot have rules that discriminate against one group. How can she have them change the rules, when those rules are bullshit in the first place? She's not an idiot, she was well within her rights. As for the dress code stuff, are girls who wear jeans, t-shirts, and tennis shoes to schools on a daily basis making a "political statement"? Those are mens' clothing. Maybe they should only wear feminine clothing, so things aren't politcal in how they choose to dress. Best not to make waves in this country.Christ..... People act like she wanted to hold a lesbian orgy on the dance floor.
by Cerebral_DownTime » Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:45 pm
She should have done whatever it takes to rewrite the rule (ie. petition the board of ed, write her congressman, whatever). Not just get pissed and sue because they won't let her be the exception
Would you be making the same argument for them? Answer honestly and don;t just say it's a differnt situation.
And as for the tux...she is the one making a mundane tuxedo a political statement by claiming that that they are violating her freedom of expression by not letting her wear one
Try wearing a dress to work tomorrow and let me know how that works out for you.
by jfiling » Mon Mar 15, 2010 6:38 pm
by aoxo1 » Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:21 am
by motherscratcher » Tue Mar 16, 2010 1:07 am
by stonepm » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:30 am
by Ziner » Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:09 am
stonepm wrote:I think you guys are missing my point. 1st off, I side with the girl here. I don't really care who she takes to the prom. My point is she is suing them because they wouldn't let her break the rule, not because they wouldn't change the rule, even if it is stupid and outdated.
The district's decision Wednesday came after the ACLU demanded that officials change a policy banning same-sex prom dates because it said it violated students' rights.
stonepm wrote:Now, regardless of the outcome, all this is doing is costing the district (read:TAXPAYERS) shitloads of money.
stonepm wrote:Nowhere did I read where she made any attemp to get the rule changed, only that she approached them about taking her girlfriend to the prom and wearing a tux, they said 'no'. She was aware the rule existed because she said that they had denied people in the past. Now, she should have garnered public support and then pursued whatever avenue she had to (I don't know what the process is, but if it was me, I would have found out)to change the rule. Instead. she went right to the ACLU and the nuclear option. Which would be fine if the other stuff didn't work.
stonepm wrote:Does this make more sense?
by stonepm » Tue Mar 16, 2010 1:16 pm
by Cerebral_DownTime » Tue Mar 16, 2010 1:30 pm
by motherscratcher » Tue Mar 16, 2010 1:45 pm
by Ziner » Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:51 pm
by stonepm » Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:34 pm
The whole point of the ALCU is use tax payer money to protect the rights of said tax payers, no?Stone, show me where it's written that she has to exhaust all other methods before bringing in the ALCU. It's no a waste of tax payer money, it's exactly why the ALCU exists. If the school is so stupid that they think it's ok to bar people from prom based on who they date, then they should be sued.
This shit isn't that complicated."Excuse me Mr. Superintendent, could you please change your homphobic rule that never should've been in place to begin with?"
by stonepm » Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:42 pm
Motherscratcher wrote:stonepm - It really sounds like you're saying that you think there was a good chance that the board would have changed the rule if she had just written a nice letter or something. AND, the board only refused to change the rule and cancelled the prom to spite the ACLU, not because they are homophobic A-holes. In short, the school board doesn't necessarily have anything against this girl and her lifestyle, they just don't like the ACLU. Is that what you're saying?
by exiledbuckeye » Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:57 pm
by Orenthal » Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:47 pm
jfiling wrote:To anyone who wants to decry to movement away from "traditional values", you can expect a hearty "fuck you". People living in a lifestyle that you don't approve of doesn't harm you. You trying to make people live according to your values makes you an asshole.
by jfiling » Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:41 am
exiledbuckeye wrote:Stonepm, you have your facts slightly wrong. The girl talked to the school principal back in December about bringing her girlfriend as a date, they refused to allow it, all that stuff. So the ACLU sent a letter to the school on her behalf asking that she be allowed to bring her girlfriend, and in response to the letter the school district cancelled prom. The ACLU is now suing to force the district to hold the prom and allow the same-sex couple to attend.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/ ... 2120.shtml
At the center of the lawsuit is a memorandum from the school to students, dated February 5, which says that prom dates must be of the opposite sex.Also, when McMillen expressed a desire to wear a tuxedo to the prom, the district superintendent told her only male students were allowed to wear them, according to court documents.
"We are determined to get the prom back on the calendar and open to all students," said ACLU lawyer Christine Sun. "What this case comes down to is the school taking the extraordinary measure of canceling the prom, rather than live up to its legal obligation to fairly treat all students who want to come to it."
by stonepm » Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:51 am
by jfiling » Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:03 pm
stonepm wrote:I stand corrected. The principal sounds like a dick knuckle. On a side note: That was a terrible interview. That girl did a phenomenal job of not falling for Behar's baiting. Kudos to her.
by jb » Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:04 pm
by motherscratcher » Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:23 pm
JB wrote:This sounds like a job for Ren McCormack.
by jfiling » Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:14 am
To avoid Constance McMillen bringing a female date to her prom, the teen was sent to a "fake prom" while the rest of her class partied at a secret location at an event organized by parents.
by Ziner » Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:10 am
by exiledbuckeye » Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:24 am
by motherscratcher » Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:42 am
by mattvan1 » Tue Apr 06, 2010 12:54 pm
by Cerebral_DownTime » Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:18 pm
mattvan1 wrote:In most of the US, the calendar year is 2010.In Mississippi, it's sometime in the late 1960's. The state flag tells you all you need to know.
by jb » Wed Apr 07, 2010 6:05 pm
by jb » Wed Apr 07, 2010 6:07 pm
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:mattvan1 wrote:In most of the US, the calendar year is 2010.In Mississippi, it's sometime in the late 1960's. The state flag tells you all you need to know.Fucking Rebel flags....... Do they not realize that they lost the war? Confederate Flags are for losers..... Literally.
by jack_tors » Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:12 pm
by mattvan1 » Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:11 pm
A federal judge Tuesday ordered a rural county in southwestern Mississippi to stop segregating its schools by grouping African American students into all-black classrooms and allowing white students to transfer to the county's only majority-white school, the U.S. Justice Department announced.
Return to No Holds Barred
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest